HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
doubtful, when it could have been 
decided. The “ glorious uncer- 
- tainty of the law,” was a thing well 
.known and complained of, by all 
‘ignorant people, but all learned 
gentlemen considered it, as_ its 
greatest excellency. He therefore 
_ thought this was a fair and honora- 
ble compromise; but he wished 
ee to bear in their minds, 
that his royal highness considered 
himself in honor and in justice, 
bound to pay his creditors, the £10 
‘per cent. which the commissioners 
had reduced of their demands; and 
until that was done, his royal high- 
Ress could not resume conscien- 
tiously, nor in honor, his state and 
dignity. 
_ The chancellor of the exchequer, 
explained this circumstance in the 
following manner: For all the debts 
which were fairly and justly due, 
there were given to the creditors, 
who were at liberty to accept them 
at their option, debentures ot £100, 
: bearing 3 per cent. interest, or £90, 
_ bearing 5 per cent. ; those who pre- 
ferred the £90, could not be said 
to have their debt reduced, as by 
law, no interest at-all was due on 
debts,which were merely book debts. 
He was very glad that this measure 
would silence for ever the petition 
of right. Although legal opinions 
had said, that he was entitled to 
an account of the revenues of 
_ Cornwall, none had said that in 
that account, no allowances were 
‘to be made for money expended 
for his use; but at all events, if 
is there were a legal judgment, the 
fund was gone on which it was to 
_be alten; and-if the prince should 
be obliged at jength, to come to 
‘parliament, for its equitabie inter- 
pretation. of the judgment, it would 
¥ 
79 
Iet in an account, between the 
public and the prince, which it was 
much better not to gointo. He 
concluded,-by maintaining, that 
there had been no deduction made 
from the debts of the creditors, 
Mr. Sheridan, and the chancellor 
of the exchequer, mutually ex- 
plained. 
Mr. Fox said, that as he con- 
ceived the account closed between 
the prince and the public in 1795, 
hethought it was improper to allude 
to what had passed in 1787. In 
1795, there were some persons who 
thought £125,000 per annum, was 
too great anincome, to be allowed 
a prince of Wales; but he was not 
ofthat number. The chancellor of 
exchequer, in arguing that there: 
had not been a reduction of £10 
per cent. made by the commission- 
ers in the prince’s debts, said that 
book debts bore no interest; that 
was true, as long as they were book 
debts; but from the time you pre- 
tend to pay them,and give securities, 
then these securities always do 
bear interest, and therefore giving a 
security for £90, for a debt of 
£100, was most clearly a diminu- 
tion of £10 per cent. As to the 
claims with respect to the duchy of 
Cornwall, the only way he thought, 
they could enter into the present 
question, was, that in addition to 
the consideration, that the prince 
had for eight years submitted to 
great privations and restraints, other 
reasons have. occurred, which 
strengthened his claims on the 
generosity of the nation. In that 
point of view only, he considered 
’ the sacrifice of the Cornwall claims, 
applicable to the present question. 
He concluded, by observing the 
prince had now shewn himself 
worthy 
